Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

Isn't that something. When I think of RvW, I think about a woman in a doctor's office, ie the only two people in the room, not "collateral damage".

Of course there’s collateral damage. In some cases there is emotional or financial damage to women who do not want to give birth, but were denied abortion because they’re too far along and lack a medical justification for the procedure.

 

[Emily Lake]

The question becomes whose interests are paramount, the woman in the doctor's office or what is gestating within her?

At some point, “what is gestating within her” is a baby, a human life capable of surviving on its own outside the womb.

 

[Emily Lake]

This thread has been all over the road on the abortion subject, so you restricting the conversation to just third trimester, it'd be helpful to note likewise.

It hasn’t though. Only the abortion on demand with no restrictions at all crowd has been all over the place.

 

[ZiprHead]

Edit: it's also very interesting with respect to Hypocrisy and the CAS review that a very large number of much more vetted, statistically valid studies were run and rejected under much thinner rationale (a lack of double blinding) including a large variety of case study in *exactly in difficult collection environments*, and yet somehow, those rejections are valid and yet mine isn't

1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.

Lying for Jesus is quite common. I posted one example here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question becomes whose interests are paramount, the woman in the doctor's office or what is gestating within her?

At some point, “what is gestating within her” is a baby, a human life capable of surviving on its own outside the womb.

Wholly missing the point. You appear to mistake your opinion as the only one. There are plenty of people that think fertilization is the point where that thing gestating in the woman is "a baby".

The question remains whose rights are paramount over the other. There is no definitive answer. Only opinions.

 

[Elixir]

As has been discussed, literally every pathway to enforcing a legal restriction against what you falsely consider "on-demand" abortion inserts the influence of people whose second guesses are both expected and dreaded, as a clock ticks down to a pregnant person's inevitable death.

That sounds quite melodramatic, but apparently hit a nerve. It was once commonly said that six posts in a row were the sign of a netkook. I’m not sure how to describe ten in a row, but it must be serious!

 

[Emily Lake]

This is black-and-white. Few things in the world are so black-and-white as this.

Sex in mammals is far, far, far more black-and-white.

 

[Emily Lake]

oesn't look like an elephant to me. Emily says she wants abortion rights as protected under Roe v Wade and wants to have protocols for third trimester procedures. Protocols that will interfere with access to needed health care.

The exact same protocols that were in place under RvW, which did NOT interfere with medically necessary care.

There you go again redefining the issue. “Needed health care” - JH’s phrase- is not identical to medically necessary health care.

Healthcare includes physical and mental healthcare. The protocols under RvW allowed states to interfere with access in different ways.

Yes, RvW permitted expanded access to needed safe health care, especially compared to the current situation. You may feel that was a preferable situation to the present one, but don’t pretend it didn’t interfere with access to needed health care.

I don’t give a crap about semantics and specific words. That a red herring. At the end of the day, I’m advocating for EXACTLY the same guidelines and restrictions that existed under RvW. How you want to word that is up to you.

 

[Emily Lake]

oesn't look like an elephant to me. Emily says she wants abortion rights as protected under Roe v Wade and wants to have protocols for third trimester procedures. Protocols that will interfere with access to needed health care.

The exact same protocols that were in place under RvW, which did NOT interfere with medically necessary care.

You aren't saying you want the status quo as it was. You have been saying Roe v Wade but....

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

 

[Emily Lake]

Edit: it's also very interesting with respect to Hypocrisy and the CAS review that a very large number of much more vetted, statistically valid studies were run and rejected under much thinner rationale (a lack of double blinding) including a large variety of case study in *exactly in difficult collection environments*, and yet somehow, those rejections are valid and yet mine isn't

1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.

Lying for Jesus is quite common. I posted one example here.

What the hell does that have to do with the Cass report?

 

[Emily Lake]

The question becomes whose interests are paramount, the woman in the doctor's office or what is gestating within her?

At some point, “what is gestating within her” is a baby, a human life capable of surviving on its own outside the womb.

Wholly missing the point. You appear to mistake your opinion as the only one. There are plenty of people that think fertilization is the point where that thing gestating in the woman is "a baby".

The question remains whose rights are paramount over the other. There is no definitive answer. Only opinions.

So go argue with those people then.

 

[Emily Lake]

As has been discussed, literally every pathway to enforcing a legal restriction against what you falsely consider "on-demand" abortion inserts the influence of people whose second guesses are both expected and dreaded, as a clock ticks down to a pregnant person's inevitable death.

That sounds quite melodramatic, but apparently hit a nerve. It was once commonly said that six posts in a row were the sign of a netkook. I’m not sure how to describe ten in a row, but it must be serious!

Bite me

 

[TomC]

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

So much this.
I personally think that lots of ugly behavior gets covered up by aborting the evidence. Nevertheless, the worst problem with RvW is that it's not law. I really wish it had been made federal law 20 years ago.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Edit: it's also very interesting with respect to Hypocrisy and the CAS review that a very large number of much more vetted, statistically valid studies were run and rejected under much thinner rationale (a lack of double blinding) including a large variety of case study in *exactly in difficult collection environments*, and yet somehow, those rejections are valid and yet mine isn't

1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.

Lying for Jesus is quite common. I posted one example here.

What the hell does that have to do with the Cass report?

It has to do with the quality of the people being interviewed.

Also

As researchers and pediatric clinicians with experience in the field of transgender healthcare, we read the Review with great interest. The degree of financial investment and time spent is impressive. Its ability to publish seven systematic reviews, conduct years’ worth of focus groups and deeply investigate care practices in the UK is admirable. We hoped it would improve the public’s awareness of the health needs of transgender youth and galvanize improvements in delivery of this care. Indeed, statements of the Review favorably describe the individualized, age-appropriate, and careful approach recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society.3 Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious, debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process and recommendations.

(Emphasis in source)

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

 

[laughing dog]

oesn't look like an elephant to me. Emily says she wants abortion rights as protected under Roe v Wade and wants to have protocols for third trimester procedures. Protocols that will interfere with access to needed health care.

The exact same protocols that were in place under RvW, which did NOT interfere with medically necessary care.

There you go again redefining the issue. “Needed health care” - JH’s phrase- is not identical to medically necessary health care.

Healthcare includes physical and mental healthcare. The protocols under RvW allowed states to interfere with access in different ways.

Yes, RvW permitted expanded access to needed safe health care, especially compared to the current situation. You may feel that was a preferable situation to the present one, but don’t pretend it didn’t interfere with access to needed health care.

I don’t give a crap about semantics and specific words. That a red herring. At the end of the day, I’m advocating for EXACTLY the same guidelines and restrictions that existed under RvW. How you want to word that is up to you.

Except your posts indicate you do give a crap about semantics.

I get it. You wish to pretend Roe v Wade didn’t interfere with needed health care. Fine. But mo one should be expected to pretend along with you.

 

[Politesse]

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

So much this.
I personally think that lots of ugly behavior gets covered up by aborting the evidence. Nevertheless, the worst problem with RvW is that it's not law. I really wish it had been made federal law 20 years ago.
Tom

I want to be grateful that the Respect for Marriage Act passed when it did, but the fact that they didn't use that legislative window to protect the rights of American women as well makes me feel a little gross. Like when a bad parent rewards the good kids to punish the naughty one. Apparently we were the more palatable minority that month? Maybe the powers that be were already planning ahead to jettison trans folks from LGB protections, and that was the opening bribe...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

oesn't look like an elephant to me. Emily says she wants abortion rights as protected under Roe v Wade and wants to have protocols for third trimester procedures. Protocols that will interfere with access to needed health care.

The exact same protocols that were in place under RvW, which did NOT interfere with medically necessary care.

You aren't saying you want the status quo as it was. You have been saying Roe v Wade but....

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

FFS. SCOTUS axed the Voting Rights Act. SCOTUS can as easily ax an act as they can their own precedence. You keep creating this imaginary power of SCOTUS having a harder time nix'ing the federal protection of reproductive rights in a passed law than they do their own precedence. They ruled the Federal Government had no say in the matter. That would have killed any federal legislation.

And right now, the only thing that could reverse SCOTUS would be a constitutional amendment.

 

[Toni]

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

So much this.
I personally think that lots of ugly behavior gets covered up by aborting the evidence. Nevertheless, the worst problem with RvW is that it's not law. I really wish it had been made federal law 20 years ago.
Tom

I want to be grateful that the Respect for Marriage Act passed when it did, but the fact that they didn't use that legislative window to protect the rights of American women as well makes me feel a little gross. Like when a bad parent rewards the good kids to punish the naughty one. Apparently we were the more palatable minority that month? Maybe the powers that be were already planning ahead to jettison trans folks from LGB protections, and that was the opening bribe...

I know you didn’t mean it that way but in your analogy, women are the naughty children. You’re the good kid.

It’s just that pervasive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

So much this.
I personally think that lots of ugly behavior gets covered up by aborting the evidence. Nevertheless, the worst problem with RvW is that it's not law. I really wish it had been made federal law 20 years ago.
Tom

I want to be grateful that the Respect for Marriage Act passed when it did, but the fact that they didn't use that legislative window to protect the rights of American women as well makes me feel a little gross. Like when a bad parent rewards the good kids to punish the naughty one. Apparently we were the more palatable minority that month? Maybe the powers that be were already planning ahead to jettison trans folks from LGB protections, and that was the opening bribe...

I think it was less about who, but what. Dems pass the ACA and get crucified in the mid-terms. Imagine what would have happened with protecting abortion rights... when it wasn't even necessary to do because it was the law of the land because SCOTUS said so. Passing the act wouldn't have changed anything. Just added what SCOTUS would have needed to shred later.

 

[Politesse]

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

So much this.
I personally think that lots of ugly behavior gets covered up by aborting the evidence. Nevertheless, the worst problem with RvW is that it's not law. I really wish it had been made federal law 20 years ago.
Tom

I want to be grateful that the Respect for Marriage Act passed when it did, but the fact that they didn't use that legislative window to protect the rights of American women as well makes me feel a little gross. Like when a bad parent rewards the good kids to punish the naughty one. Apparently we were the more palatable minority that month? Maybe the powers that be were already planning ahead to jettison trans folks from LGB protections, and that was the opening bribe...

I think it was less about who, but what. Dems pass the ACA and get crucified in the mid-terms. Imagine what would have happened with protecting abortion rights... when it wasn't even necessary to do because it was the law of the land because SCOTUS said so. Passing the act wouldn't have changed anything. Just added what SCOTUS would have needed to shred later.

Respectfully, I disagree. While it is true that conservatives are not cowed by the prospect of shredding any law or principle, I think this very month's docket demonstrated just how much easier it is to shred legislation from the bench versus legislation by Congress. And we the public should prefer to be governed primarily by the legislative branch anyway.